BJS

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

TECHNICAL REPORT September 2013, NCJ 241656

Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey

Janet L. Lauritsen, BJS Visiting Fellow

Maribeth L. Rezey, University of Missouri - St. Louis

Introduction

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime 

Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection 

designed to gather information about nonfatal personal 

crimes and household property crimes in the United States. 

The main purpose of the NCVS is to accurately measure 

the number and type of criminal victimizations that occur 

each year to persons age 12 or older. Victimization rates are 

most commonly used in NCVS reports to describe changes 

in the level of personal and household crime over time 

and the levels of crime experienced by different population 

subgroups. However, prevalence rates also may be used 

to describe changes in the level of crime over time and 

differences between subgroups. 

This report discusses victimization rates and prevalence rates 

and the value of each type of indicator for understanding 

criminal victimization. Using NCVS data, the report displays 

and compares trends in the victimization and prevalence 

rates from 1993 to 2010. It also analyzes the differences 

between victimization and prevalence rates for various 

types of crime and demographic groups using data from the 

2010 NCVS.

Defining victimization rates and prevalence rates

Annual estimates of a population’s risk for criminal 

victimization can be examined using victimization rates, 

incident rates, or prevalence rates. Historically, BJS reports 

using NCVS data rely on victimization rates, which measure 

the extent to which victimizations occur in a specified 

population and time period. For crimes affecting persons, 

NCVS victimization rates are estimated by dividing the 

number of victimizations that occur during a specified time 

period (T) by the population at risk for those victimizations 

and multiplying the rate by 1,000. These victimization rates 

permit comparisons of crime over time and between 

population subgroups.

A victimization rate is typically larger than an alternative 

incident rate because more than one person can be 

victimized during a single incident of crime. For example, 

the armed robbery of two persons would be counted as one 

incident but as two victimizations. Using a victimization 

rate rather than an incident rate provides an estimate of the 

Victimization rate T = × 1,000

 Number of victimizations experienced 

by specified population T

Number of persons in the specified population T 

HIGHLIGHTS

 From 1993 to 2010, the decline in violent victimization rates 

(down 76%) was greater than the decline in prevalence 

rates (down 63%).

 For serious violent crimes, the victimization rate decreased 

77% and the prevalence rate decreased 66%.

 In 1993, 77% of violent crime victims reported that they 

were victimized one time during the year, compared to 

83% in 2010.

 The percentage of violent crime victims who experienced 

two or more victimizations during a year declined from 

23% in 1993 to 17% in 2010. In 2010, this 17% accounted 

for more than half (54%) of all violent victimizations.

 Victims of intimate partner violence (21%) were more likely 

to experience repeat victimization within the year than 

were victims of stranger violence (9%).

 From 1993 to 2010, the decline in total household property 

crime victimization rates (down 64%) was greater than the 

decline in prevalence rates (down 48%).

 The proportion of household property crime victims who 

reported two or more incidents during the year decreased 

from 25% in 1993 to 18% in 2010. In 2010, the 18% of 

repeat household victims accounted for about 41% of all 

household property victimizations.

 In 2010, 12% of burglary victims reported two or more 

incidents during the year, accounting for about 34% of all 

burglary victimizations.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 2

number of victimizations experienced by individuals (or by 

households in the case of household-based crimes). When 

the purpose of the rate is to describe the level of crime among 

persons in the population, victimization rates tend to be 

preferred over incident rates. Incident rates are more likely to 

be used when making comparisons to official law enforcement 

crime data, which generally count crime by the number of 

incidents rather than the number of victims.

Prevalence rates also describe the level of victimization 

but are based on the number of persons (or households) in 

the population who experienced at least one victimization 

during a specified time period. The key distinction between a 

victimization or incident rate and a prevalence rate is whether 

the numerator consists of the number of victimizations or the 

number of victims. Prevalence rates do not take into account 

the number of victimizations each victim experiences. These 

rates tell about the risk of experiencing at least one crime in a 

given period.

While prevalence rates are not often produced using NCVS 

data, it is possible to do so. For crimes affecting persons, 

prevalence rates are estimated by dividing the number of 

victims in the specified population by the total number of 

persons in the population and multiplying the rate by 1,000. 

When the same multiplier (1,000) is used, the prevalence rate 

can be compared to the victimization rate. Prevalence rates can 

also be based out of 100, which is simply the percentage of the 

population victimized at least once in a given period of time.

Victimization and prevalence rates may also be produced for 

household-based crimes, such as burglary. In these instances, 

the numerators and denominators are adjusted accordingly to 

reflect households rather than persons. 

When the prevalence rate and the victimization rate are 

estimated on a per 1,000 basis, the trends can show changes in 

the mean number of incidents per victim over time or the 

concentration of victimizations per victim. The mean number 

of incidents per victim is estimated by dividing the number of 

victimizations by the number of victims. Higher mean values 

are one indicator of the extent to which repeat 

victimization occurs.

Once repeat victims are identified, the percentage of 

victimizations accounted for by these repeat victims can then 

be estimated using the following formula:

[V – (Y x P)] / V x 100

where 

V is the victimization rate per 1,000

Y is the proportion of victims with only one victimization

P is the prevalence rate per 1,000.

Prevalence rate T =Number of victims in a specified population T

Number of persons in the specified population T 

× 1,000

Concentration = Number of victimizations

Number of victims

BJS Visiting Fellows 

The BJS Visiting Fellows program is intended to facilitate 

collaboration between academic scholars and government 

researchers in survey methodology, statistics, economics, and 

social sciences. Visiting Fellows have the unique opportunity 

to address substantive, methodological and analytic issues 

relevant to BJS programs, and to further knowledge and 

understanding of criminal justice systems operation. Fellows 

conduct research at BJS or at their home site, use BJS data and 

facilities, and interact with BJS staff. Pending available funding, 

the program is normally conducted each year through a 

competitive solicitation. 

Applicants are limited to senior-level social science researchers 

or statisticians in the fields of statistics, survey methodology, 

mathematics, criminology, demography, economics, behavioral 

science, and other related fields. They must have an established 

research record in their field, have considerable expertise in 

their area of proposed research, and be willing to commit a 

substantial portion of their time (typically 6 to 18 months) to 

undertake analyses of existing BJS data. In addition, they must 

produce a report that both summarizes their analyses and 

meets BJS publication and data quality standards. For further 

information, see: http://www.bjs.gov/content/fellows.cfm.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 3

The value of measuring victimization risk using 

different rates

Both victimization and prevalence rates provide information 

about the level of and risk for crime. Using these together 

will better inform changes in the crime rate over time. For 

example, the crime rate may increase because of more victims 

or victimizations per victim or both. If the crime rate increases 

because there are more victimizations per victim (an increase 

in repeat victimization), a person’s risk of experiencing any 

victimization has not changed, but their risk for repeated 

victimization if they are a victim has increased. 

A considerable portion of the victimizations that occur 

(typically within a single year) are experienced by a small 

number of repeat victims.1 This suggests that identifying repeat 

victims may present a unique opportunity to reduce crime 

rates, as it focuses attention on those who disproportionately 

experience victimization. However, if repeat victims are unique 

from other crime victims, focusing on repeat victims may 

result in crime reductions that are not uniform across all types 

of crime, victim characteristics, and degrees of crime severity. 

The extent of repeat victimization and the potential value 

of focusing efforts on repeat victims can only be known if 

prevalence rates and victimization rates are distinguished. 

For instance, some forms of repeat victimization (such as 

household burglary) tend to occur within relatively short 

time intervals after the initial victimization.2 If underlying 

patterns of repeat victimization can be determined by 

examining prevalence rates, efforts focused on reducing 

future victimization by those recently victimized may result in 

greater decreases in crime than strategies that are more broadly 

targeted. 

It is also valuable to understand and report victimization rates. 

To a large extent, reports based on NCVS data typically provide 

annual victimization rates rather than prevalence rates because 

the NCVS serves as an alternative to annual police-based 

estimates of crime from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports 

(UCR).3 NCVS-based estimates of the levels and changes 

in crime are routinely compared to estimates generated 

using UCR data, which only include incidents reported to 

or recorded by the police. Prevalence rates cannot be easily 

compared to police rates of crime because they count unique 

victims and not the number of crimes. 

1See Grove, L., G. Farrell, D. Farrington, and S. Johnson. (2012). Preventing 

repeat victimization: A systematic review. Stockholm: The Swedish National 

Council for Crime Prevention.

2Forrester, D., S. Frenz, M. O’Connell, and K. Pease. (1990). The Kirkholt 

burglary prevention project. Home Office Crime Prevention Unit Paper 13. 

London: Home Office.

3Groves, R. and D. Cork., eds. (2008). Surveying victims: Options for 

conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington DC: 

National Research Council.

Reporting on changes in the victimization rate is also 

important because criminal events initiate criminal justice 

system activities, such as police investigations, arrests, and 

subsequent prosecutions, sentencing outcomes, and the 

provision of victim services. Therefore, NCVS victimization 

rates are capable of providing information that can be used for 

making key decisions for criminal justice system operations. 

Victimization rates and prevalence rates for personal 

violence: 1993–2010

The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape and sexual 

assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, and 

includes both completed and attempted crimes. From 1993 to 

2010, declines occurred in both the victimization rate and the 

prevalence rate of violent victimization (figure 1). The violent 

victimization rate declined 76%, from 79.8 per 1,000 persons 

age 12 or older in 1993 to 19.3 per 1,000 in 2010.4

4Annual victimization rates include series victimizations and count such 

incidents based on the number of times the victim reported that the 

victimization occurred, up to a maximum of 10 times. See Methodology for 

more information 

Figure 1

Total violent victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 1 for populations, estimates, and standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year.

bNumber of persons per 1,000 age 12 or older who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

0

20

40

60

80

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Year
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 4

During the same period, the prevalence rate for violent crime 

declined 63%, from 29.3 to 10.8 per 1,000. Since the decline 

in the victimization rate was greater than the decline in the 

prevalence rate, the mean number of victimizations per victim 

also declined, from 2.7 victimizations per victim in 1993 to 1.8 

in 2010 (table 1).

Over time, both the number of persons victimized and the 

average number of victimizations each victim experienced 

declined, with the number of victimizations declining at a faster 

rate than the number of victims. In 1993, 6.2 million victims 

experienced 16.8 million victimizations, while in 2010, 2.8 million 

victims experienced 4.9 million victimizations (table 2).

The distribution of violent victimization reported in the NCVS 

is skewed, as most persons experienced no victimizations and 

the majority of victims reported one victimization during the 

year. In 1993, of the 2.9% of the population that experienced 

at least one violent victimization, approximately 77% reported 

that they were victimized once, which increased to 83% in 

2010 when 1.1% of the population experienced at least one 

violent victimization. About 23% of violent crime victims in 

1993 and 17% in 2010 experienced repeat victimization. Over 

this period, both the percentage of the population victimized 

and the percentage of those repeatedly victimized declined. 

Because of this skew in the distribution of violent 

victimization, both the modal category (one victimization 

during the year) and the mean should be considered as 

statistical estimates of the risk for repeat victimization. It is 

not fully accurate to say that in 2010 the typical violent crime 

victim experienced 1.8 victimizations per year in 2010, since 

83% of victims experienced only one victimization during 

the year. More accurately, most victims of violent crime 

in a given year experienced one victimization, and a small 

percentage of victims reported repeat victimizations. Though 

TABLE 2

Number of violent victimizations and victims, by type of 

crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of violent crime Victimizations Victims

Total

1993 16,822,620 6,179,940

2010 4,935,980 2,753,160

Serious violent crimea

1993 6,131,960 2,654,090

2010 1,694,840 1,094,280

Rape/sexual assaultb

1993 834,710 283,730

2010 253,560 127,730

Robbery

1993 1,752,670 824,800

2010 568,510 408,490

Aggravated assault

1993 3,481,060 1,596,160

2010 857,750 569,080

Simple assault

1993 10,690,660 3,873,670

2010 3,241,150 1,776,210

Note: Detail may not add to total due to rounding. See appendix table 3 for 

standard errors. 

aIncludes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

bIncludes females only.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 2010.

TABLE 1

Violent victimization rate, prevalence rate, and number of victimizations per victim, by type of crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of violent crime Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb

Mean number of 

victimizations per victim

Percent of victims with 

one victimization

Total

1993 79.8 29.3 2.7 77%

2010 19.3 10.8 1.8 83

Serious violent crimec

1993 29.1 12.6 2.3 84%

2010 6.6 4.3 1.5 92

Rape/sexual assaultd

1993 7.7 2.6 2.9 74%

2010 1.9 1.0 2.0 85

Robbery

1993 8.3 3.9 2.1 91%

2010 2.2 1.6 1.4 97

Aggravated assault

1993 16.5 7.6 2.2 86%

2010 3.4 2.2 1.5 94

Simple assault

1993 50.7 18.4 2.8 77%

2010 12.7 6.9 1.8 82

Note: Total population age 12 or older was 210,906,900 in 1993 and 255,961,940 in 2010. See appendix table 2 for standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cIncludes rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

dIncludes females only.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 5

the percentage of victims who experienced repeat violence 

of any form in 2010 was comparatively small, the 17% who 

did experience repeat violence accounted for 54% of all of the 

violent victimizations that occurred in that year. In contrast, in 

1993 the 23% of victims who experienced repeat victimization 

accounted for 72% of the violent victimizations that occurred 

that year (not shown in table).

Serious violence

The rate of serious violent victimization—rape and sexual 

assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—declined 77%, from 

29.1 per 1,000 in 1993 to 6.6 per 1,000 in 2010 (figure 2). The 

prevalence rate declined 66%, from 12.6 per 1,000 in 1993 to 

4.3 per 1,000 in 2010. Because the victimization rate declined 

more than the prevalence rate, the average number of serious 

violent victimizations per victim declined from 2.3 to 1.5 

victimizations (table 1). The majority of serious violent crime 

victims reported experiencing one victimization during the 

year. In 1993, 16% of serious violent crime victims experienced 

repeat victimization within the year, compared to 8% in 2010. 

Repeat victims accounted for 40% of all serious violence in 

2010 and 63% of all serious violence in 1993 (not shown 

in table).

Rape and sexual assault

Similar to other forms of violence, the victimization and 

prevalence rates for rape and sexual assault among females age 

12 or older declined overall from 1993 to 2010 (figure 3). The 

female victimization rate for rape and sexual assault declined 

75% from 1993 to 2010 (from 7.7 to 1.9 per 1,000), while the 

prevalence rate declined 63% (from 2.6 to 1.0 per 1,000). 

The average number of rape and sexual assault victimizations 

per female victim was 2.9 in 1993 and 2.0 in 2010. The 

proportion of female rape and sexual assault victims reporting 

one incident during the year was 74% in 1993 and 85% in 2010 

(table 1).

Figure 2

Serious violent victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 4 for populations, estimates, and standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year.

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

Figure 3

Female rape and sexual assault victimization rate and 

prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 5 for populations, estimates, and standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year. 

bNumber of females age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 females age 12 or older

Year

0

10

20

30

40

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Year
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 6

Robbery 

The robbery victimization rate declined 73%, from 8.3 in 1993 

to 2.2 per 1,000 in 2010 (figure 4). During the same period, 

the prevalence rate declined 59%, from 3.9 to 1.6 per 1,000. 

On average, victims of robbery experienced 2.1 victimizations 

in 1993, compared to 1.4 in 2010. The proportion of robbery 

victims who reported experiencing one robbery during the 

year was 91% in 1993 and 97% in 2010. Robbery victims were 

less likely to experience a repeat victimization during the 

year than rape and sexual assault and simple assault victims 

(table 1).

Aggravated assault

The aggravated assault victimization rate declined 80%, from 

16.5 per 1,000 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2010 (figure 5). During the 

same period, the prevalence rate declined 71%, from 7.6 

to 2.2 per 1,000. The average number of aggravated assault 

victimizations per victim declined from 2.2 in 1993 to 1.5 in 

2010. In 1993, 86% of aggravated assault victims reported one 

aggravated assault victimization, compared to 94% in 2010 

(table 1). 

Since aggravated assaults made up the majority of serious 

violent crimes, the mean number of victimizations and the 

percentage of victims with one aggravated assault victimization 

were similar to the estimates for overall serious violence. In 

1993, aggravated assault victims were less likely than rape and 

sexual assault victims—but more likely than robbery victims—

to experience a repeat victimization within the year. However, 

in 2010, a similar percentage of aggravated assault victims 

experienced repeat victimization as rape and sexual assault and 

robbery victims. 

Figure 4

Robbery victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 6 for populations, estimates, and standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Year

Figure 5

Aggravated assault victimization rate and prevalence 

rate, 1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 7 for populations, estimates, and standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

4

8

12

16

20

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Year
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 7

Simple assault

The simple assault victimization rate declined 75%, from 50.7 

per 1,000 in 1993 to 12.7 per 1,000 in 2010 (figure 6). The 

prevalence rate declined 62% during the same period, from 

18.4 to 6.9 per 1,000. Victims of simple assault experienced 

an average of 2.8 victimizations in 1993 and 1.8 in 2010. 

The percentage of simple assault victims who reported one 

victimization during the year was 77% in 1993 and 82% 

in 2010.

The average number of simple assault victimizations per 

victim was most comparable to that found for female rape and 

sexual assault. This was also true for the proportion of simple 

assault victims who experienced more than one victimization 

during the year. Since rape and sexual assault had the lowest 

victimization rate and simple assault had the highest, the 

similar levels of repeat victimization among the two crime 

types indicates that risk for repeat victimization is not simply 

due to high or low crime rates.

Percentage experiencing violent crime

When prevalence rates are computed as a percentage of the 

population experiencing crime, the levels and changes in the 

risk for victimization for each of the types of violent crime can 

be compared from 1993 to 2010. For rape and sexual assault, 

the percentage was calculated for females age 12 or older. For 

the other types of violence, the percentages were based on all 

persons age 12 or older. 

The percentage of the population experiencing simple assault 

was consistently more than twice as high as the percentage 

experiencing any other type of violent crime (figure 7). In 

1993, 1.8% of the population age 12 or older experienced 

simple assault, 0.8% experienced aggravated assault, 0.4% 

were victims of robbery, and 0.3% of females were victims 

of rape and sexual assault. In 2010, 0.7% of the population 

age 12 or older experienced simple assault, 0.2% experienced 

aggravated assault, 0.2% were victims of robbery, and 0.1% of 

females age 12 or older were victims of rape or sexual assault. 

In total, approximately 1% of the population age 12 or older 

experienced some form of violent victimization at least once in 

2010 (not shown in table). Figure 6

Simple assault victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 8 for populations, estimates, and standard errors. 

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during 

the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one 

victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

Year

Figure 7

Percent victimized of persons age 12 or older, by type of 

violent crime, 1993–2010

Note: Includes persons age 12 or older. See appendix table 9 for rate estimates and 

standard errors.

*Due to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information. 

**Includes females only.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Percent of persons age 12 or older

Year

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Simple assault

Aggravated assault

Robbery

Rape and sexual assault**

'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06* '07 '08 '09 '10
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 8

Violent victimization and prevalence rates for selected 

subgroups and types of violence during 2010

To further illustrate how violent victimization rates and 

prevalence rates are distributed in the population, rates for 

specific subgroups and additional types of violence were 

examined. Comparisons between victimization rates and 

prevalence rates are important for understanding the level of 

and risk for different subtypes of violence, such as stranger 

violence and intimate partner violence.

Although differences were found in earlier years, the violent 

victimization rates among males and females did not differ in 

2010, when the rate for males was 20.1 per 1,000, compared 

to 18.5 for females (table 3). No differences were detected in 

the prevalence rates for violent crime between males (11.4 per 

1,000) and females (10.1 per 1,000). Because there were no 

statistically significant differences in either the victimization 

rates or the prevalence rates in 2010, the average number 

of violent victimizations for male and female victims was 

also similar.

Greater differences in the risk for violence were found across 

age groups. Persons age 35 or older had significantly lower 

victimization rates (12.5 per 1,000) than persons ages 12 to 34. 

The differences in the victimization rates between the younger 

age groups (i.e., persons ages 12 to 17, persons ages 18 to 24, 

and persons ages 25 to 34) were not statistically significant. 

However, prevalence rates suggest that the risk for violence 

for persons ages 25 to 34 (13.8 per 1,000) was lower than the 

risk for persons ages 18 to 24 (19.9 per 1,000). The differences 

across age groups in the prevalence and victimization rates and 

in the average number of victimizations per victim may reflect 

the types of violence that persons of different ages are most 

likely to experience.

TABLE 3

Number and rate of violent victimization, by sex and age of victim, 2010

Victim characteristic Population

Victimizations Victims Mean number of 

Number Ratea Number Rateb victimizations per victim

Sex

Male 124,987,510 2,510,530 20.1 1,429,390 11.4 1.8

Female 130,974,430 2,425,460 18.5 1,323,770 10.1 1.8

Age

12–17 24,435,530 687,530 28.1 420,410 17.2 1.6

18–24 29,867,010 1,012,050 33.9 593,060 19.9 1.7

25–34 41,712,030 1,238,640 29.7 577,270 13.8 2.1

35 or older 159,947,370 1,997,760 12.5 1,162,430 7.3 1.7

Note: See appendix table 10 for standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 9

Overall, the victimization rates for the total population were 

significantly lower for violence committed by nonintimate 

family members (1.4 per 1,000) than they were for violence 

committed by intimate partners (3.0 per 1,000), friends and 

acquaintances (6.1 per 1,000), and strangers (7.1 per 1,000) 

(table 4). The prevalence rates of violence committed by a 

stranger were similar to rates of violence committed by friends 

and acquaintances, and higher than the rates of violence 

committed by an intimate partner or relative. The prevalence 

rates revealed that the highest rate was for violence committed 

by a stranger (4.7 per 1,000), while the lowest rate was for 

violence committed by a nonintimate relative (0.9 per 1,000).

The differences between the victimization and prevalence rates 

across these relationship categories showed that the mean 

number of victimizations per victim was lower for victims of 

stranger violence than for victims of intimate partner violence. 

The data also indicated that victims of stranger violence 

were less likely to experience repeat victimization during 

the year, compared to victims who knew the offender. For 

example, 9% of victims of stranger violence experienced repeat 

victimization in 2010, compared to 21% of intimate partner 

violence victims who experienced repeat victimization.

Even though overall violent victimization rates among males 

and females were about the same in 2010, males and females 

experienced different levels of risk based on victim-offender 

relationship.5 Both victimization and prevalence rates suggest 

similar patterns in violence against males and females 

according to victim-offender relationship. 

Violent victimization committed by relatives and by friends 

and acquaintances occurred at similar rates among males and 

females in 2010. However, the rates of stranger violence and 

intimate partner violence differed between males and females. 

Victimization rates for stranger violence against males (9.5 per 

1,000) were nearly twice as large as the rates for females (4.7 

per 1,000). The prevalence rates for stranger victimization were 

also greater among males (6.0 per 1,000 for males, compared 

to 3.5 per 1,000 for females). Victimization rates for intimate 

partner violence against females (4.9 per 1,000) were greater 

than the rates against males (1.1 per 1,000), as were the 

prevalence rates for intimate partner violence (2.2 per 1,000 for 

females, compared to 0.5 per 1,000 for males). 

5See Truman, J. (2011). Criminal victimization, 2010. Washington DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 235508

TABLE 4

Violent victimization, by victim-offender relationship and sex, 2010

Mean number of 

victimizations per victim

Percent of victims with 

Sex one victimization

Victimizations Victims

Number Ratea Number Rateb

Total 4,935,980 19.3 2,753,160 10.8 1.8 83%

Intimate partner 773,430 3.0 344,820 1.3 2.2 79

Relative 356,130 1.4 219,030 0.9 1.6 82

Friend/acquaintance 1,567,220 6.1 828,720 3.2 1.9 80

Stranger 1,812,300 7.1 1,208,290 4.7 1.5 91

Male 2,510,530 20.1 1,429,390 11.4 1.8 /

Intimate partner 136,660 1.1 60,100 0.5 2.3 /

Relative 140,530 1.1 83,230 0.7 1.7 /

Friend/acquaintance 730,390 5.8 416,860 3.3 1.8 /

Stranger 1,192,190 9.5 746,660 6.0 1.6 /

Female 2,425,460 18.5 1,323,770 10.1 1.8 /

Intimate partner 636,770 4.9 284,720 2.2 2.2 /

Relative 215,600 1.6 135,800 1.0 1.6 /

Friend/acquaintance 836,820 6.4 411,860 3.1 2.0 /

Stranger 620,110 4.7 461,630 3.5 1.3 /

Note: The sum of the counts of violence for each offender category do not equal the totals because incidents without information on the victim-offender relationship not 

shown in this table. Rates are based on a total population of 255,961,940; a male population of 124,987,510; and a female population of 130,974,430. See appendix table 11 for 

standard errors.

/ Not reported. The 2010 NCVS data are insufficient in sample size for producing reliable estimates of percent of victims with one victimization by sex and victim/offender 

relationship.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 10

The average number of victimizations per year for male and 

female victims of violence committed by other family members 

(1.7 for males and 1.6 for females), friends and acquaintances 

(1.8 for males and 2.0 for females), and strangers (1.6 for 

males and 1.3 for females) were similar. The average number 

of victimizations among victims of intimate partner violence 

was also similar for males (2.3) and females (2.2), although the 

prevalence rate for females was higher than it was for males.

In general, the relationship between age and victimization risk 

was the same across victim-offender relationship regardless 

of whether victimization rates or prevalence rates were used 

(table 5). For example, using both victimization and prevalence 

rates, persons age 35 or older had the lowest risk for violence 

by strangers, by friends and acquaintances, and by intimate 

partners.6 Victimization rates and prevalence rates both 

showed that persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest risk 

6Intimate partner comparisons excluded persons ages 12 to 17. The 2010 

NCVS data are insufficient for producing reliable estimates of intimate partner 

violence rates among youth ages 12 to 17.

for violence by strangers, while the risk for intimate partner 

violence was highest among persons ages 18 to 24 and ages 25 

to 34. 

In addition, the magnitudes of the age differences in risk 

were similar within victim-offender categories when based 

on both victimization and prevalence rates. For instance, 

the victimization rates suggested that persons ages 12 to 17 

were 4.7 times more likely to be victimized by friends and 

acquaintances than were persons age 35 or older, while the 

prevalence rates suggested that this ratio was 4.6. In other 

words, victimization rates and prevalence rates revealed similar 

patterns in the relationship between age and victimization risk 

for these categorizations of violence.

TABLE 5

Violent victimization, by age and victim-offender relationship, 2010

Mean number of 

victimizations per victim

Victimizations Victims

Age Number Ratea Number Rateb

12–17 687,530 28.1 420,410 17.2 1.6

Intimate partner / / / / /

Relative 35,900 ! 1.5 ! 27,060 ! 1.1 ! 1.3 !

Friend/acquaintance 391,680 16.0 221,170 9.1 1.8

Stranger 199,920 8.2 141,950 5.8 1.4

18–24 1,012,050 33.9 593,060 19.9 1.7

Intimate partner 177,500 5.9 85,820 2.9 2.1

Relative 50,640 ! 1.7 ! 35,840 ! 1.2 ! 1.4 !

Friend/acquaintance 271,900 9.1 143,470 4.8 1.9

Stranger 413,810 13.9 292,000 9.8 1.4

25–34 1,238,640 29.7 577,270 13.8 2.1

Intimate partner 242,090 5.8 98,970 2.4 2.4

Relative 92,280 2.2 47,050 1.1 2.0

Friend/acquaintance 362,320 8.7 136,860 3.3 2.6

Stranger 431,730 10.4 285,650 6.8 1.5

35 or older 1,997,760 12.5 1,162,430 7.3 1.7

Intimate partner 353,840 2.2 160,020 1.0 2.2

Relative 177,310 1.1 109,080 0.7 1.6

Friend/acquaintance 541,320 3.4 327,230 2.0 1.7

Stranger 766,840 4.8 488,690 3.1 1.6

Note: Rates are based on a population ages 12–17 of 24,435,530; a population ages 18–24 of 29,867,010; a population ages 25–34 of 41,712,030; and a population age 35 or 

older of 159,947,370. See appendix table 12 for standard errors. 

/ Not reported. 

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 11

Victimization rates and prevalence rates for household 

property crime: 1993–2010

The NCVS measures household property victimization, 

including burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft. The 

total household property victimization rate declined 64% 

from 1993 to 2010, from 351.8 to 125.4 victimizations per 

1,000 households (figure 8). The prevalence rate for household 

property crime declined 48%, from 171.6 per 1,000 in 1993 to 

89.2 in 2010. The decline in the victimization rate compared 

to the prevalence rate resulted in a decline in the average 

number of victimizations per victimized household, from 2.1 

victimizations per year in 1993 to 1.4 in 2010 (table 6).

The differences between the prevalence and victimization 

rate percentage change estimates for property crime (16 

percentage points) were comparable to the differences found 

for violent crime (13 percentage points). Similar to total violent 

victimization, the distribution of household victimization was 

skewed, and the majority of victimized households reported 

one victimization during the year. In 1993, approximately 75% 

of victimized households reported one victimization during 

the year, and in 2010, this proportion increased to 82%. During 

2010, the 18% of households victimized by repeat property 

crime accounted for approximately 41% of all property crime 

victimizations. In comparison, in 1993 the 25% of households 

that experienced repeat victimization accounted for 64% of all 

property crime victimizations (not shown in table).

Figure 8

Total property victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 13 for populations, estimates, and standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization 

during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

100

200

300

400

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 households

Year

TABLE 6

Household property crime victimization rate, prevalence rate, and number of victimizations per household, by type of 

crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of property crime Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb

Mean number of 

victimizations per household

Percent of victims with 

one victimization

Total

1993 351.8 171.6 2.1 75%

2010 125.4 89.2 1.4 82

Burglary

1993 63.9 36.2 1.8 85%

2010 25.8 19.4 1.3 88

Motor vehicle theft

1993 19.3 12.1 1.6 92%

2010 4.9 4.3 1.2 96

Theft

1993 268.6 136.7 2.0 78%

2010 94.6 70.1 1.3 84

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Total number of households was 99,746,020 in 1993 and 122,885,160 in 2010. See appendix table 14 for standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization during the year.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 12

Burglary

The burglary victimization rate declined 60%, from 63.9 per 

1,000 households in 1993 to 25.8 in 2010, while the prevalence 

rate for burglary declined 46%, from 36.2 per 1,000 households 

in 1993 to 19.4 in 2010 (figure 9). The average number of 

victimizations among victims of household burglary was 1.8 

per year in 1993 and 1.3 in 2010 (table 6).

A similar proportion of burglary victims experienced one 

incident in 1993 and 2010. In 2010, approximately 12% of 

burglary victims experienced a repeat burglary. These victims 

of repeat burglary accounted for about a third (34%) of all 

burglary victimizations in 2010 and 52% of all burglary 

victimizations in 1993 (not shown in table).

Motor vehicle theft

Like other household crimes, both the victimization rate 

(down 74%) and the prevalence rate (down 65%) showed 

declines in motor vehicle theft from 1993 to 2010 (figure 10). 

The victimization rate for motor vehicle theft declined 

from 19.3 to 4.9 per 1,000 households, while the prevalence 

rate declined from 12.1 to 4.3 per 1,000 households. The 

greater decline in the victimization rate compared to the 

prevalence rate produced a decline in the average number of 

victimizations per victimized household, from 1.6 to 1.2 motor 

vehicle thefts per year (table 6). Between 1993 and 2010, the 

proportion of motor vehicle theft victims who experienced 

only one incident in the calendar year increased slightly from 

92% to 96%. Of the three types of household thefts, victims of 

motor vehicle theft were the least likely to experience a repeat 

victimization during the year.

Figure 9

Burglary victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 15 for populations, estimates, and standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year.

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization 

during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 households

Year

Figure 10

Motor vehicle theft victimization rate and prevalence 

rate, 1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 16 for populations, estimates, and standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year.

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization 

during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

5

10

15

20

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 households

Year
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 13

Theft

The third type of household crime measured in the NCVS 

was theft, which occurred more frequently than burglary 

and motor vehicle theft. Like other household crimes, theft 

exhibited declines over time (figure 11). The victimization 

rate for theft declined 65%, from 268.6 per 1,000 households 

in 1993 to 94.6 in 2010. The prevalence rate for theft declined 

49%, from 136.7 per 1,000 households in 1993 to 70.1 in 

2010. The average number of thefts per victimized household 

decreased from 2.0 in 1993 to 1.3 in 2010 (table 7). Victims of 

theft were more likely than victims of other household crimes 

to experience a repeat victimization. Between 1993 and 2010, 

the proportion of theft victims who experienced one incident 

in the year increased slightly, from 78% to 84%. In 2010, 16% 

of household theft victims experienced a repeat victimization, 

compared to 12% of burglary victims and 4% of motor vehicle 

theft victims.

Figure 11

Theft victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Note: See appendix table 17 for populations, estimates, and standard errors.

aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization 

during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 

2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Prevalence rateb

Victimization ratea

'06 '07 '08 '09 '10 c '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05

Rate per 1,000 households

Year

TABLE 7

Number of property victimizations and victims, by type 

of crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of property crime

Number of 

victimizations

Number of households 

victimized

Total

1993 35,093,890 17,114,930

2010 15,411,610 10,966,400

Burglary

1993 6,378,720 3,614,650

2010 3,176,180 2,384,900

Motor vehicle theft

1993 1,921,180 1,205,770

2010 606,990 523,050

Theft

1993 26,793,990 13,631,900

2010 11,628,440 8,619,800

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding. Total number of households was 

99,746,020 in 1993 and 122,885,160 in 2010. See appendix table 18 for standard 

errors.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 

and 2010.

Summary

From a criminal justice system perspective, it is beneficial 

to understand the rate at which victimization occurs among 

a population and the prevalence of victims within that 

population. Victimization and prevalence rates can help detect 

whether any change in the criminal victimization rate resulted 

from a change in the number of victims or the number of 

victimizations per victim. These rates also help identify 

which groups are prone to repeat victimization and the risk 

associated with being victimized.

Victimization rate data can be used to assess the needs of 

the criminal justice system as the occurrence of an event 

initiates certain activities (e.g., investigations, arrests, and 

prosecutions). Prevalence rate data may be used to estimate 

the number of victims requiring services in a given year. This 

report discusses the use of victimization rates and prevalence 

rates in the NCVS data, and how both help identify the level of 

crime and distribution of the risk for violence and household 

theft across the population. 

Violent victimization rates

When analyzing long-term trends for violent crime, 

examining both victimization rates and prevalence rates in 

the NCVS led to similar conclusions about changes in the 

risk for victimization over time. Both indicators showed large 

declines in the risk for violent victimization between 1993 

and 2010; however, annual victimization rates showed that 

the magnitude of decline in risk for violence was greater than 

the decline in annual prevalence rates. For total violence, the 

difference in the estimate of change between victimization 

rates (down 76% from 1993 to 2010) and prevalence rates 

(down 63%) was 13 percentage points. In addition, the 

victimization rates for violent crime were approximately 2 to 

3 times greater than the prevalence rates in 1993 and about 

1.5 to 2 times greater in 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 14

Examination of the prevalence rates also showed that 83% 

of the victims of violence experienced one victimization 

in 2010. The 17% of victims who experienced repeat 

victimization accounted for 54% of all violent victimizations 

that occurred that year, indicating that significant reductions 

in violence could potentially be achieved by preventing repeat 

victimization. Because the majority of victims (83%) did not 

experience additional violence in 2010, determining which 

victims are most likely to experience repeat victimization is a 

challenge for research and practice.

Rates for subgroups

The comparisons of differences by age and sex in overall 

violence resulted in generally similar conclusions regardless 

of whether victimization rates or prevalence rates were used 

to make the comparisons. However, the distinction between 

victimization and prevalence rates was most useful when 

describing rates of violence according to victim-offender 

relationship. Intimate partner violence victims were more 

likely to experience repeat violence within a year, compared to 

victims of stranger violence. Without taking into consideration 

the challenges associated with targeting intimate partner 

violence compared to stranger violence, this finding suggests 

that successfully targeting victims of intimate partner 

violence to prevent repeat victimization would result in a 

proportionately greater reduction in violence than targeting 

victims of stranger violence.

The patterns also show that when the average number of 

incidents per victim was similar across subgroups, such as 

the average number of violent victimizations for male (1.8) 

and female (1.8) victims in 2010, these averages may hide 

differences in the composition of the types of victimizations 

experienced by each group and variation in the repeated nature 

of some types of violence (e.g., stranger) across the groups. 

Therefore, caution must be used when interpreting subgroup 

averages in the annual number of victimizations per victim, 

because these averages may be a combination of different kinds 

of processes and violent events.

Age and sex are not the only subgroup comparisons that may 

be examined, nor is the victim-offender relationship the only 

categorization of violence that should be considered when 

studying victimization and prevalence rates. Further research 

would need to be completed to better understand where the 

risk of repeat victimization is greatest. Additional assessments 

may reveal some subgroups or forms of violence for which 

there are larger distinctions between victimization rates and 

prevalence rates. For instance, there may be differences across 

race and Hispanic origin or across urban, suburban, and 

rural residents. Variations in the patterns may also be found if 

violence is categorized by location of occurrence, such as in the 

home, at school, or in a public location. In addition, this report 

examines subgroup comparisons using data from the 2010 

NCVS. However, the distinction between victimization rates 

and prevalence rates in subgroup comparisons could be more 

critical during periods when overall violence rates were higher, 

such as the early to mid-1990s.

Property crime rates

As with violent crimes, long-term trends in household 

property crime resulted in similar conclusions regardless of 

whether victimization rates or prevalence rates were used. Both 

rates showed large declines in the risk for household property 

crime between 1993 and 2010, although the percentage 

change in annual property victimization rates (down 64%) was 

greater than the percentage change in annual prevalence rates 

(down 48%). 

Household crimes exhibited smaller differences between 

victimization rates and prevalence rates than were found 

among the violent crimes. In 2010, the victimization rates for 

household crimes were approximately 1.4 times greater than 

the prevalence rates, compared to approximately 1.8 times 

greater for violent crime rates. However, during the same 

year, the proportion of household property crime victims 

who experienced one victimization (82%) was similar to the 

proportion of violent crime victims who experienced one 

victimization (83%). This indicates that the distribution of 

violent victimization was more often characterized by a few 

high-rate repeat victims than the distribution of household 

property crime victimization. 

For household property crimes, victimizations were less 

concentrated. Repeat victims accounted for a lower proportion 

of total property crime (41%) than violent crime (54%) 

victimization, which suggests that the factors underlying 

repeat victimization are different for household crimes and 

violent victimizations. In addition, this finding suggests that 

reductions in repeat violence would have a greater impact on 

the total number of violent victimizations than reductions in 

repeat property victimization would have on the number of 

property crime victimizations.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 15

Methodology

Survey coverage

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an 

annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a selfreport survey in which interviewed persons are asked about 

the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced 

during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information 

on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, 

aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and 

household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, 

and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In 

addition to providing annual level and change estimates on 

criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of 

information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents. 

Survey respondents provide information about themselves 

(e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, 

education level, and income) and whether they experienced a 

victimization. Information is collected for each victimization 

incident about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic 

origin, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics 

of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use 

of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), 

whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime 

was or was not reported, and experiences with the criminal 

justice system.

The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from 

a nationally representative sample of households in the 

United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of 

members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are 

considered household members when the sampled address 

is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview 

and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. 

Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, 

and eligible persons in these households are interviewed 

every 6 months either in-person or over the phone, for a 

total of seven interviews. Generally, all first interviews are 

conducted in-person. New households rotate into the sample 

on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have 

been in sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes 

persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming 

houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons 

living in military barracks and institutional settings, such 

as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless. (For 

more information, see the Survey Methodology for Criminal 

Victimization in the United States, 2008, NCJ 231173, BJS Web, 

May 2011.) 

In 2010, about 41,000 households and 73,300 individuals 

age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each 

household was interviewed twice during the year. The response 

rate was 92.3% of households and 87.5% of eligible individuals. 

Victimizations that occurred outside of the U.S. were excluded 

from this report. From 1993 to 2010, 1,657 (0.8%) of the total 

197,849 unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the U.S.

Weighting adjustments for estimating victimization

Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2010 NCVS 

data files. These files can be weighted to produce annual 

estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living 

in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample 

rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights 

are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known 

population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse 

and other aspects of the sample design.

The NCVS data files include both person and household 

weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the population 

represented by each person in the sample. Household 

weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household population 

represented by each household in the sample. After proper 

adjustment, both household and person weights are also 

typically used to form the denominator in calculations of 

crime rates.

Annual victimization estimates are derived by accumulating 

estimates across the two 6-month interview periods. The 

weights of all crimes reported during interviews in that year 

are summed, regardless of when the crime occurred. This 

method provides annual estimates of victimization, the typical 

measure reported from NCVS analyses. Victimization weights 

used in this analysis account for the number of persons 

present during an incident and for repeat victims of series 

incidents. The weight counts series incidents as the actual 

number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum 

of 10 incidents. Series victimizations are similar in type but 

occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall 

each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey 

procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify 

these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to 

collect detailed information on only the most recent incident 

in the series. In 2010, about 3% of all victimizations were 

series incidents. Weighting series incidents as the number of 

incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more 

reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes 

the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional 

information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report 

Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in 

the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS Web, 

April 2012.

This report also measures prevalence rates of victimization. 

The prevalence estimate rate for a violent crime is a measure 

of the number of unique persons age 12 or older that 

experienced a violent victimization in a given year, regardless 

of the number or frequency of victimizations. The prevalence 

estimate rate for household property crime is a measure of the 

number of unique households that experienced a household 

property victimization in a given year, regardless of the 

number or frequency of victimizations.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 16

Person victimization weights were constructed to ensure that 

a person who experienced more than one nonfatal violent 

victimization within a 6-month period or in both 6-month 

periods in a given year was counted only once in that annual 

prevalence estimate. Similarly, household victimization weights 

were constructed to ensure that a household that experienced 

one or more property crime victimizations within a 6-month 

period or in both 6-month periods in a given year was counted 

only once in that annual prevalence estimate. 

Not all persons (or households) surveyed in the NCVS in 

a given year are interviewed twice. Because the NCVS uses 

a rotating panel design with 6-month recall periods, some 

persons were interviewed once only during the first half of the 

year because that was their last intended interview. Others who 

were interviewed only once during the first half of the year 

may have moved out of a sampled household, or their second 

intended interview for that year was not obtained for some 

other reason. Another group of persons were interviewed once 

only during the second half of the year because that was their 

first intended interview, because the persons recently moved 

into a currently sampled household, or they were missing a 

prior interview from the first half of the year for some other 

reason. The assumption underlying the annual prevalence rate 

estimates is that the annual rate of victimization for persons 

interviewed twice is similar to the rate of persons interviewed 

once. This assumption was tested using data from 2009 and 

2010 NCVS interviews. Those tests showed that the prevalence 

rates of those interviewed twice were not significantly different 

from those interviewed once. The prevalence rates of persons 

interviewed only in the first half of the year were somewhat 

lower than the prevalence rates for persons interviewed twice, 

while persons interviewed only in the second half of the year 

had prevalence rates that were somewhat higher than those 

interviewed twice. The average of the rates of the two groups of 

persons interviewed once was not significantly different from 

the average of those interviewed twice.

Standard error computations

When national estimates are derived from a sample, as is the 

case with the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing 

one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates 

over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, 

estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling 

error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several 

factors, including the amount of variation in the responses and 

the size of the sample. When the sampling error around the 

estimates is taken into consideration, the estimates that appear 

different may not be statistically different.

One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate 

is the standard error. The standard error can vary from 

one estimate to the next. In general, for a given metric, an 

estimate with a smaller standard error provides a more reliable 

approximation of the true value than an estimate with a larger 

standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors 

are associated with less precision and reliability and should 

be interpreted with caution. In order to generate standard 

errors around numbers and estimates from the NCVS, the 

Census Bureau produces generalized variance function (GVF) 

parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the 

NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to 

a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife 

Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters were 

used to generate standard errors for each point estimate (such 

as counts, percentages, and rates) in the report. 

In this report, BJS conducted tests to determine whether 

differences in estimated numbers and percentages were 

statistically significant once sampling error was taken into 

account. Using statistical programs developed specifically 

for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for 

significance. The primary test procedure used was Student’s 

t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample 

estimates. To ensure that the observed differences between 

estimates were larger than might be expected due to 

sampling variation, the significance level was set at the 95% 

confidence level.

Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of 

the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence 

interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of 

error. The following example illustrates how standard errors 

can be used to generate confidence intervals:

According to the NCVS, in 2010, the violent victimization 

rate among persons age 12 or older was 19.3 per 1,000 

(see table 1). Using the GVFs, it was determined that the 

victimization rate estimate has a standard error of 0.84 

(see appendix table 2). A confidence interval around the 

estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors 

by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution 

that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). 

Therefore, the confidence interval around the 19.3 estimate 

from 2010 is equal to 19.3 ± 1.65 (.84 X 1.96) or 17.65 to 

20.95. In others words, if different samples using the same 

procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2010, 

95% of the time the violent victimization rate would fall 

between 17.65 and 20.95. 

In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation 

(CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard 

error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and 

a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures 

with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV was 

greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer 

cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (interpret data 

with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or 

the coefficient of variation exceeds 50%).
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 17

Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006

Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have 

affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent 

that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. 

Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by 

BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence 

that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 are consistent 

with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous 

years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, 

December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, 

December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, 

September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, 

October 2010; and Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, 

September 2011, are available on the BJS website. 

References

Forrester, D., S. Frenz, M. O’Connell, and K. Pease. (1990). 

The Kirkholt burglary prevention project. Home Office Crime 

Prevention Unit Paper 13. London: Home Office.

Grove, L., G. Farrell, D. Farrington, and S. Johnson. (2012). 

Preventing repeat victimization: A systematic review. Stockholm: 

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

Groves, R. and D. Cork., eds. (2008). Surveying victims: Options 

for conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey. 

Washington DC: National Research Council.

Lauritsen, J. (2012). Violent repeat victimization: Prospects and 

challenges for research and practice. National Institute of Justice, 

Research for the Real World Seminar. Available at: http://www.

nij.gov/events/research-real-world.htm

Lauritsen, J., J. Gatewood Owens, M. Planty, M. Rand, and J. 

Truman. (2012). Methods for counting high-frequency repeat 

victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, 

BJS Web, NCJ 237308.

Truman, J. (2011). Criminal Victimization, 2010, BJS Web, 

NCJ 235508.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 18

Appendix table 1

Estimates and standard errors for figure 1: Total violent victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors 

Year Population age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 210,906,904 79.8 29.3 2.01 1.09

1994 213,135,895 80.0 32.8 1.58 0.91

1995 215,080,689 70.7 30.0 1.46 0.86

1996 217,234,276 64.7 27.1 1.41 0.82

1997 219,839,107 61.1 26.5 1.43 0.86

1998 221,880,964 54.1 24.5 1.62 0.97

1999 224,568,370 47.2 21.1 1.42 0.84

2000 226,804,614 37.5 18.8 1.26 0.81

2001 229,215,295 32.6 17.0 1.13 0.75

2002 231,589,263 32.1 15.5 1.07 0.68

2003 239,305,985 32.1 14.8 1.02 0.63

2004 241,703,710 27.8 14.4 0.94 0.63

2005 244,505,295 28.4 13.7 1.05 0.67

2006c 247,233,080 34.1 16.8 1.03 0.69

2007 250,344,870 27.2 13.2 0.98 0.63

2008 252,242,523 25.3 13.1 0.95 0.63

2009 254,105,607 22.3 11.7 0.89 0.60

2010 255,961,936 19.3 10.8 0.84 0.58 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010. 

Appendix table 2

Standard errors for table 1: Violent victimization rate, prevalence rate and number of victimizations per victim, by 

type of crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of violent crime Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb

Mean number of 

victimizations per victim

Percent of victims 

with one victimization

Total

1993 2.01 1.09 0.12 1.35%

2010 0.84 0.58 0.12 1.73

Serious violent crime

1993 1.08 0.65 0.15 1.62%

2010 0.43 0.33 0.15 1.79

Rape/sexual assault

1993 0.66 0.35 0.47 5.47%

2010 0.27 0.18 0.46 6.28

Robbery

1993 0.50 0.32 0.22 2.04%

2010 0.22 0.18 0.21 1.82

Aggravated assault

1993 0.76 0.47 0.17 1.91%

2010 0.28 0.22 0.20 2.14

Simple assault

1993 1.53 0.82 0.15 1.61%

2010 0.64 0.44 0.15 2.09 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 19

Appendix table 3

Standard errors for table 2: Number of violent 

victimizations and victims, by type of crime, 1993 and 

2010

Type of violent crime Victimizations Victims

Total

1993 464,631 240,109

2010 214,260 148,080

Serious violent crime

1993 238,893 139,465

2010 109,276 83,390

Rape/sexual assault

1993 72,361 38,472

2010 35,336 23,856

Robbery

1993 107,488 67,773

2010 56,078 46,079

Aggravated assault

1993 165,736 101,423

2010 71,865 56,112

Simple assault

1993 344,051 177,483

2010 164,138 112,514

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 

2010.

Appendix table 4

Estimates and standard errors for figure 2: serious violent victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors 

Year Population of persons age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 210,906,904 29.1 12.6 1.08 0.65

1994 213,135,895 27.0 13.9 0.81 0.54

1995 215,080,689 22.4 11.7 0.72 0.48

1996 217,234,276 21.8 10.5 0.72 0.46

1997 219,839,107 21.1 10.5 0.75 0.49

1998 221,880,964 16.6 9.1 0.75 0.51

1999 224,568,370 15.9 8.1 0.70 0.46

2000 226,804,614 12.4 7.2 0.62 0.44

2001 229,215,295 11.0 6.3 0.56 0.40

2002 231,589,263 10.0 5.3 0.51 0.35

2003 239,305,985 10.0 5.3 0.50 0.34

2004 241,703,710 9.5 5.3 0.49 0.35

2005 244,505,295 9.2 5.1 0.53 0.37

2006c 247,233,080 12.7 7.0 0.59 0.42

2007 250,344,870 9.0 4.8 0.49 0.34

2008 252,242,523 7.9 4.8 0.47 0.35

2009 254,105,607 7.8 4.4 0.46 0.33

2010 255,961,936 6.6 4.3 0.43 0.33 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year.

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007,

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 20

Appendix table 5

Estimates and standard errors for figure 3: Female rape and sexual assault victimization rate and prevalence rate, 

1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Population of females age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 108,833,728 7.7 2.6 0.66 0.35

1994 110,040,466 5.6 2.4 0.43 0.26

1995 111,140,022 4.4 2.2 0.37 0.25

1996 112,180,114 3.5 1.5 0.33 0.20

1997 113,240,445 4.5 1.8 0.41 0.25

1998 114,285,431 3.2 1.8 0.36 0.25

1999 115,915,819 4.8 2.1 0.43 0.27

2000 116,987,646 3.0 1.4 0.34 0.22

2001 118,140,537 3.6 1.4 0.38 0.21

2002 119,347,330 2.5 1.2 0.30 0.19

2003 123,264,895 2.5 1.0 0.30 0.18

2004 124,216,870 2.0 1.0 0.27 0.19

2005 125,556,853 1.5 0.9 0.26 0.19

2006c 126,767,283 2.8 1.4 0.36 0.24

2007 128,222,168 1.8 1.3 0.26 0.21

2008 129,171,507 2.4 1.0 0.32 0.20

2009 130,064,420 2.2 0.7 0.30 0.15

2010 130,974,430 1.9 1.0 0.27 0.18 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of females age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 6

Estimates and standard errors for figure 4: Robbery victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Population of persons age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 210,906,904 8.3 3.9 0.50 0.32

1994 213,135,895 7.9 4.4 0.38 0.27

1995 215,080,689 6.3 3.8 0.33 0.25

1996 217,234,276 6.6 3.6 0.34 0.24

1997 219,839,107 5.4 3.2 0.33 0.24

1998 221,880,964 4.4 2.9 0.32 0.24

1999 224,568,370 4.5 2.4 0.31 0.21

2000 226,804,614 3.9 2.4 0.30 0.22

2001 229,215,295 2.9 1.9 0.24 0.19

2002 231,589,263 2.7 1.7 0.23 0.17

2003 239,305,985 3.0 1.7 0.24 0.17

2004 241,703,710 2.6 1.5 0.23 0.17

2005 244,505,295 3.1 1.7 0.28 0.20

2006c 247,233,080 3.8 2.2 0.30 0.22

2007 250,344,870 3.1 1.7 0.26 0.18

2008 252,242,523 2.7 1.7 0.25 0.19

2009 254,105,607 2.5 1.5 0.24 0.17

2010 255,961,936 2.2 1.6 0.22 0.18 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 21

Appendix table 7

Estimates and standard errors for figure 5: Aggravated assault victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Population of persons age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate 

1993 210,906,904 16.5 7.6 0.76 0.47

1994 213,135,895 16.0 8.6 0.59 0.40

1995 215,080,689 13.5 7.0 0.53 0.35

1996 217,234,276 13.2 6.4 0.53 0.34

1997 219,839,107 13.2 6.6 0.57 0.37

1998 221,880,964 10.4 5.5 0.56 0.37

1999 224,568,370 8.7 4.7 0.48 0.32

2000 226,804,614 6.9 4.2 0.43 0.31

2001 229,215,295 6.0 3.7 0.38 0.28

2002 231,589,263 5.8 3.0 0.37 0.25

2003 239,305,985 5.7 3.2 0.35 0.25

2004 241,703,710 5.9 3.3 0.37 0.26

2005 244,505,295 5.2 3.0 0.38 0.27

2006c 247,233,080 7.1 4.2 0.42 0.32

2007 250,344,870 4.9 2.5 0.34 0.23

2008 252,242,523 3.8 2.5 0.30 0.24

2009 254,105,607 4.1 2.6 0.31 0.24

2010 255,961,936 3.4 2.2 0.28 0.22 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 8

Estimates and standard errors for figure 6: Simple assault victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Population of persons age 12 or older Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 210,906,904 50.7 18.4 1.53 0.82

1994 213,135,895 53.0 21.0 1.23 0.69

1995 215,080,689 48.3 20.1 1.16 0.67

1996 217,234,276 42.9 18.0 1.10 0.64

1997 219,839,107 40.0 17.2 1.11 0.67

1998 221,880,964 37.5 16.8 1.28 0.76

1999 224,568,370 31.3 13.9 1.09 0.65

2000 226,804,614 25.1 12.3 0.98 0.62

2001 229,215,295 21.6 11.3 0.87 0.57

2002 231,589,263 22.1 10.8 0.85 0.54

2003 239,305,985 22.1 10.0 0.81 0.50

2004 241,703,710 18.3 9.7 0.73 0.50

2005 244,505,295 19.2 9.0 0.83 0.52

2006c 247,233,080 21.4 10.6 0.79 0.53

2007 250,344,870 18.3 9.0 0.77 0.49

2008 252,242,523 17.4 8.8 0.75 0.50

2009 254,105,607 14.6 7.8 0.68 0.47

2010 255,961,936 12.7 6.9 0.64 0.44 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of persons age 12 or older per 1,000 who experienced at least one victimization during the year. 

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 22

Appendix table 9

Estimates and standard errors for figure 7: Percent of victimized persons age 12 or older, by type of violent crime, 

1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year

Rape and 

sexual assaulta Robberyb Aggravated assaultb Simple assaultb Rape and sexual assault Robbery

Aggravated 

assault

Simple 

assault

1993 0.3% 0.4% 0.8% 1.8% 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08

1994 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.1 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.07

1995 0.2 0.4 0.7 2.0 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.07

1996 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.8 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

1997 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.7 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.07

1998 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.7 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.08

1999 0.2 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06

2000 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

2001 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06

2002 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05

2003 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05

2004 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.0 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05

2005 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05

2006c 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05

2007 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05

2008 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05

2009 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05

2010 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 aPer 100 females age 12 or older.

bPer 100 persons age 12 or older.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 10

Standard errors for table 3: Number and rate of violent victimization, by sex and age of victim, 2010

Victim characteristic

Victimizations Victims

Number Rate Number Rate Mean number of victimizations per victim

Sex

Male 141,192 1.13 99,647 0.79 0.16

Female 138,202 1.06 95,051 0.73 0.17

Age

12–17 63,779 2.53 47,534 1.91 0.23

18–24 80,638 2.61 58,354 1.91 0.21

25–34 91,250 2.13 57,418 1.36 0.26

35 or older 122,538 0.77 87,765 0.55 0.17

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 23

Appendix table 11

Standard errors for table 4: Violent victimization, by sex and victim-offender relationship, 2010

Victimizations Victims Mean number of 

victimizations per victim

Percent of victims 

Number Rate Number Rate with one victimization

Total 214,803 0.86 149,519 0.59 0.13 1.77%

Intimate partner 68,480 0.27 42,288 0.17 0.34 4.49

Relative 43,099 0.17 32,464 0.13 0.31 5.26

Friend/acquaintance 105,463 0.42 71,405 0.28 0.21 3.04

Stranger 115,366 0.46 89,872 0.35 0.15 1.87

Male 141,192 1.13 99,647 0.80 0.16 ~

Intimate partner 24,787 0.20 15,671 0.13 0.72 ~

Relative 25,182 0.20 18,763 0.15 0.49 ~

Friend/acquaintance 66,150 0.53 47,297 0.38 0.25 ~

Stranger 89,136 0.71 67,036 0.54 0.19 ~

Female 138,202 1.06 95,051 0.73 0.17 ~

Intimate partner 60,901 0.47 37,802 0.29 0.37 ~

Relative 32,170 0.25 24,699 0.19 0.37 ~

Friend/acquaintance 71,828 0.55 46,960 0.36 0.29 ~

Stranger 59,938 0.46 50,247 0.38 0.20 ~

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.

Appendix table 12

Standard errors for table 5: Violent victimization, by age and victim-offender relationship, 2010

Age

Victimizations Victims

Number Rate Number Rate Mean number of victimizations per victim

12–17 63,779 2.53 47,534 1.91 0.26

Intimate partner ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ ! ~ !

Relative 11,831 ! 0.48 ! 10,161 ! 0.42 ! 0.62 !

Friend/acquaintance 45,585 1.83 32,647 1.32 0.71

Stranger 30,801 1.25 25,327 1.03 0.57

18–24 80,638 2.61 58,354 1.91 0.26

Intimate partner 28,768 0.96 19,086 0.64 0.17

Relative 14,266 ! 0.48 ! 11,821 ! 0.40 ! 0.46 !

Friend/acquaintance 36,801 1.22 25,480 0.85 0.42

Stranger 47,091 1.55 38,364 1.27 0.27

25–34 91,250 2.13 57,418 1.36 0.26

Intimate partner 34,400 0.82 20,668 0.49 0.62

Relative 19,874 0.48 13,704 0.33 0.71

Friend/acquaintance 43,538 1.03 24,808 0.59 0.57

Stranger 48,289 1.14 37,874 0.90 0.26

35 or older 122,538 0.77 87,765 0.55 0.17

Intimate partner 42,936 0.27 27,114 0.17 0.46

Relative 28,751 0.18 21,826 0.14 0.42

Friend/acquaintance 55,251 0.35 41,008 0.26 0.27

Stranger 68,126 0.43 51,979 0.33 0.22

~Not applicable.

! Interpret with caution; estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or coefficient of variation is greater than 50%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 24

Appendix table 13

Estimates and standard errors for figure 8: Total property victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Total households Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 99,746,023 351.8 171.6 4.81 3.48

1994 100,568,058 341.2 183.9 3.73 2.82

1995 101,504,825 315.5 172.3 3.61 2.72

1996 102,697,490 289.3 161.7 3.55 2.68

1997 103,988,666 267.1 153.6 4.01 3.02

1998 105,322,923 237.1 138.9 3.68 2.79

1999 107,159,553 210.6 128.3 3.52 2.70

2000 108,352,957 190.4 118.0 3.80 2.88

2001 109,568,453 177.7 108.6 3.74 2.81

2002 110,323,842 168.2 106.6 3.28 2.54

2003 114,136,926 173.4 109.4 3.22 2.48

2004 115,775,571 167.5 104.4 3.09 2.39

2005 117,099,815 159.5 100.6 3.45 2.64

2006c 117,858,384 169.0 114.5 3.20 2.60

2007 119,503,534 154.9 99.2 2.96 2.32

2008 121,141,058 142.6 95.5 3.29 2.61

2009 122,327,660 132.6 91.8 2.88 2.33

2010 122,885,157 125.4 89.2 2.48 2.05 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for table 6: Household property crime victimization rate, prevalence rate, and number of 

victimizations per household, by type of crime, 1993 and 2010

Type of property crime Victimization rate Prevalence rate

Mean number of 

victimizations per household

Percent of victims 

with one victimization

Total

1993 4.81 3.48 0.05 0.84%

2010 2.48 2.05 0.04 0.81

Burglary

1993 1.99 1.42 0.09 1.22%

2010 1.00 0.84 0.08 1.28

Motor vehicle theft

1993 0.97 0.73 0.13 1.50%

2010 0.38 0.35 0.13 1.55

Theft

1993 4.32 3.08 0.05 0.87%

2010 2.12 1.79 0.05 0.84

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993 and 2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 25

Appendix table 15

Estimates and standard errors for figure 9: Burglary victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Total households Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 99,746,023 63.9 36.2 1.99 1.42

1994 100,568,058 62.9 38.8 1.54 1.16

1995 101,504,825 54.4 34.9 1.41 1.08

1996 102,697,490 52.8 32.8 1.41 1.06

1997 103,988,666 48.4 31.5 1.51 1.15

1998 105,322,923 42.9 28.0 1.39 1.07

1999 107,159,553 38.4 24.3 1.31 0.99

2000 108,352,957 34.3 23.2 1.30 1.00

2001 109,568,453 31.1 20.7 1.25 0.95

2002 110,323,842 29.5 20.2 1.16 0.92

2003 114,136,926 32.0 21.9 1.17 0.92

2004 115,775,571 31.1 21.2 1.17 0.93

2005 117,099,815 30.6 21.0 1.26 0.99

2006c 117,858,384 32.9 24.2 1.28 1.07

2007 119,503,534 29.9 19.8 1.14 0.89

2008 121,141,058 28.6 19.3 1.24 0.97

2009 122,327,660 27.9 20.0 1.13 0.92

2010 122,885,157 25.8 19.4 1.00 0.84 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 16

Estimates and standard errors for figure 10: Motor vehicle theft victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Total households Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 99,746,023 19.3 12.1 0.97 0.73

1994 100,568,058 19.1 14.2 0.76 0.63

1995 101,504,825 17.1 12.5 0.70 0.58

1996 102,697,490 13.8 10.1 0.63 0.52

1997 103,988,666 14.0 10.6 0.69 0.58

1998 105,322,923 11.6 8.8 0.62 0.53

1999 107,159,553 10.0 7.6 0.57 0.49

2000 108,352,957 8.8 6.7 0.52 0.43

2001 109,568,453 9.4 7.3 0.56 0.47

2002 110,323,842 9.2 7.1 0.57 0.48

2003 114,136,926 9.0 7.0 0.53 0.45

2004 115,775,571 9.2 6.8 0.57 0.47

2005 117,099,815 8.6 6.2 0.56 0.46

2006c 117,858,384 8.7 6.7 0.59 0.51

2007 119,503,534 8.3 6.7 0.53 0.47

2008 121,141,058 6.6 5.5 0.50 0.45

2009 122,327,660 6.0 5.2 0.44 0.40

2010 122,885,157 4.9 4.3 0.38 0.35 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.
Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey | September 2013 26

Appendix table 17

Estimates and standard errors for figure 11: Theft victimization rate and prevalence rate, 1993–2010

Estimates Standard errors

Year Total households Victimization ratea Prevalence rateb Victimization rate Prevalence rate

1993 99,746,023 268.6 136.7 4.32 3.08

1994 100,568,058 259.1 147.5 3.33 2.51

1995 101,504,825 243.9 139.1 3.23 2.43

1996 102,697,490 222.6 130.6 3.15 2.39

1997 103,988,666 204.6 122.3 3.52 2.65

1998 105,322,923 182.7 111.3 3.23 2.46

1999 107,159,553 162.3 104.2 3.07 2.39

2000 108,352,957 147.4 94.4 3.29 2.51

2001 109,568,453 137.2 87.1 3.23 2.45

2002 110,323,842 129.5 84.5 2.84 2.21

2003 114,136,926 132.4 86.2 2.77 2.16

2004 115,775,571 127.2 82.8 2.67 2.09

2005 117,099,815 120.3 79.1 2.93 2.28

2006c 117,858,384 127.4 91.1 2.76 2.30

2007 119,503,534 116.8 78.4 2.54 2.02

2008 121,141,058 107.4 75.4 2.79 2.26

2009 122,327,660 98.7 71.5 2.43 2.01

2010 122,885,157 94.6 70.1 2.12 1.79 aNumber of victimizations per 1,000 households that occurred during the year. 

bNumber of households per 1,000 that experienced at least one victimization during the year.

cDue to methodological changes in the 2006 NCVS, use caution when comparing 2006 criminal victimization estimates to other years. See Criminal Victimization, 2007, 

www.bjs.gov, for more information.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1993–2010.

Appendix table 18

Standard errors for table 7: Number of property 

victimizations and victims, by type of crime, 1993 

and 2010

Type of property crime Number of victimizations Number of victims

Total

1993 581,233 381,895

2010 304,448 251,977

Burglary

1993 207,284 145,328

2010 122,469 103,492

Motor vehicle theft

1993 98,221 73,899

2010 46,928 43,140

Theft

1993 498,541 332,360

2010 260,452 219,604

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 

1993 and 2010.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice 

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyses, and 

disseminates statistical information on crime, criminal offenders, 

victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of 

government. William J. Sabol is acting director.

This report was written by Janet L. Lauritsen, BJS Visiting Fellow, and 

Maribeth L. Rezey, University of Missouri - St. Louis. Lynn Langton 

provided statistical review and verification of the report.

Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the report, 

under the supervision of Doris J. James.

September 2013, NCJ 241656